Looks like many of them were first-time offenders. It's pretty bad in Ontario, where, regardless of what the propaganda tells you, a single drink can get you over the new low limit. In any case at least in BC, they challenged a law that doesn't follow due process. In Ontario, we still have the street racing law where you get punished before getting your day in court.--If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.George Bernard Shaw

Looks like many of them were first-time offenders. It's pretty bad in Ontario, where, regardless of what the propaganda tells you, a single drink can get you over the new low limit. In any case at least in BC, they challenged a law that doesn't follow due process. In Ontario, we still have the street racing law where you get punished before getting your day in court.

Meanwhile the real killer in Ontario, undivided highways, never get a mention. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because it costs the province money, rather then making the province money?

Looks like many of them were first-time offenders. It's pretty bad in Ontario, where, regardless of what the propaganda tells you, a single drink can get you over the new low limit. In any case at least in BC, they challenged a law that doesn't follow due process. In Ontario, we still have the street racing law where you get punished before getting your day in court.

Meanwhile the real killer in Ontario, undivided highways, never get a mention. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because it costs the province money, rather then making the province money?

I used to do that but never had any accidents, even at 160Km/s.I don't drink anymore but its time somebody challenge the Ontario laws. Even I feel its over the top...at least sometimes.

The drivers were caught during a three-week period in November 2011 just before the B.C. Supreme Court ruled parts of B.C.'s tough drunk driving rules were unconstitutional.

Meanwhile the real killer in Ontario, undivided highways, never get a mention. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because it costs the province money, rather then making the province money?

Most provincial highways in Ontario with an AADT above 10,000 (the threshold for twinning) are already multi-lane or in the process of becoming such. That, combined with statistics for the last 15 or so years showing Ontario's highways as the safest in North America, doesn't lend a lot of credibility to the argument about undivided highways being a problem in the province.

While one can harp on about speeding, drunk driving or whatever, the number of fatalities and injuries that occur on our roads today pales in comparison to 30-50 years ago. While it's one thing to strive to be better, it's another to beat a dead horse over impossible perfection.

While the general idea is the same, there are some significant differences. It becomes cloudy when judges can ignore cases where the police have blatantly violated Section 8 of the Charter because they believe the interest of the public in finding someone guilty outweighs their right of the accused to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. "Due Process" wouldn't allow something like that to happen. One should also remember that we have Section 1 of the Charter which could theoretically make anything fair game. Believing that our constitutional principals of justice and what goes on in the US are one in the same is what happens when someone watches too much American TV...

... but I digress...

If the Charter had some level of enshrined property rights, roadside vehicle seizures without some sort of judicial oversight would most likely be unconstitutional. As it stands now, they might be unconstitutional in BC. Or they might be constitutional like in Ontario. It all depends on how the judge interprets the Charter. I hope that this eventually makes it to the SCC so that we get an answer on this once and for all.

And therein lies the problem. Our court systems see things differently so case law in BC doesn't apply to Ontario even when it's a constitutional issue. The government is very wary of allowing charter challenges to the street racing law to go up to the SCC because they know that it will be struck down. Even though people have had rulings in their favor, the government hasn't appealed them.--Tom

And therein lies the problem. Our court systems see things differently so case law in BC doesn't apply to Ontario even when it's a constitutional issue. The government is very wary of allowing charter challenges to the street racing law to go up to the SCC because they know that it will be struck down. Even though people have had rulings in their favor, the government hasn't appealed them.

Actually, what happens in BC does apply to Ontario, once it has made it to a ruling at a provincial Court of Appeal.

When you have a sister who has been injured by a "drunk" driver, who then hires a $500/hour lawyer. The offending driver was freed on a paperwork technicality.

It irked me all through the trial process to see the smirk on that bastard's face, which then ballooned into a smile as he left the Courtroom.

All through the trial I was amazed at how the "offenders" rights were protected. The victim was an afterthought. Even the Prosecution wanted to settle quickly and get it over with.--I am a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down.

I've been injured by a drunk driver. It took years of court for the drunk to be convicted. In the end, it was my own insurance company that I had to sue for restitution because the drunk was uninsured.

That doesn't mean that people accused of an action shouldn't be given their day in court. It doesn't mean that when the police or crown screw up, that the person shouldn't get away with it. The whole idea of being "presumed innocent" in the charter is that the crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. If the crown can't do that legally, then there IS reasonable doubt and the charter REQUIRES and acquittal.

Yes it sucks when people get off on charges that they're guilty as sin for, but a drunk driving case should be VERY easy to prosecute unless the police or crown screw up. In those situations your beef is with them and not the accused.--Tom

My beef IS with the accused. I don't care about jail time as long as he's off the road not being a menace to anyone else. That's why I am happy with the instant suspensions. My sister's accuser had his license suspended over 15 times. I'm against even one drink and then driving.You must be happy you got hit cause you got a pay off. There are similar types out there.

We live in a country governed by the rule of law. The law applies equally to everyone. Just because you were hurt by someone during the commission of a crime does not mean that that person who wronged you is not entitled to the same legal rights and protections that you would receive under the same circumstances. While I can sympathize with the position you found itself in, all one can do is be blunt when they say that if you have a problem with that, tough shit.

No, having said all that, you can keep telling yourself your beef is with the accused all you want. It doesn't make it any more true and all you are doing is allowing yourself to feed your anger based on a lie. As had already been mentioned, impaired driving is pretty cut and dry as far as convicting someone, especially when an injury is involved. If the guy got off on a "paperwork technicality," - in other words, one of his legal rights was most likely violated in some form of another - your beef is with the Crown as they obviously did not do their due diligence to secure a conviction and instead they dropped the ball by failing to do their job.

This is the hard reality of life. It rains on the just and unjust. Lying to yourself won't make things any different, and won't change anything either.

My beef IS with the accused. I don't care about jail time as long as he's off the road not being a menace to anyone else. That's why I am happy with the instant suspensions. My sister's accuser had his license suspended over 15 times. I'm against even one drink and then driving.You must be happy you got hit cause you got a pay off. There are similar types out there.

Are you serious? When did I ever say I was happy about getting hit? Grow up man and don't put words into my mouth. The money won in the lawsuit didn't even cover lost time due to the injury. Stop trying to obfuscate the fact that you're pissed that the crown dropped the ball in that trial. I have no problem with a roadside suspension when there are charges, but to give police the power to issue a roadside suspension without even charging the person is idiotic and opens the system up to abuse. At least if there are charges being brought forward it WILL see the courts and the judge / jury can decide if the person was actually breaking the law.

I've been forced to do a breathalyzer before because the cop couldn't actually think of a good reason for why he pulled me over. He initially said I was street racing another car and backed down from that when I pointed out that if I was racing the other car I would have been winning. He then tried to imply that a bag of candy was drugs. After all of that he issued a breath demand despite the fact that I was showing ZERO signs of intoxication. He was fishing and my rights were violated. I blew ZERO, btw.

People like you seem to think that it's ok for the police to punish people on the spot despite the fact that our society and our constitution very clearly say that it is NOT acceptable for that to happen. I'm totally against drinking and driving, but that doesn't mean that I believe that ANYONE should be allowed to be punished without their day in court.

If you want to live in a society that believes in punishment without "fundamental justice" or due process, then go live in one of those societies, but don't be surprised when you realize that you have ZERO rights.--Tom

He initially said I was street racing another car and backed down from that when I pointed out that if I was racing the other car I would have been winning.

yea, because that will win you over with the cop.

be glad he didn't smack your tail lights out with his club and give you a ticket for being a smart ass that. --People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

I wasn't trying to win him over. I was being an ass. I have a right to be an ass. That doesn't give him the right to perform an illegal search.

i know, i'm just saying, if you go lookin for trouble, you're bound to find it.

Sorry, Jeff, but it's these little abuses of power that lead to bigger ones. Not every cop, of course, but it starts somewhere. As a law abiding citizen, I'm disgusted by behaviour like that, as relatively insignificant is it is in the larger scheme of things. And I know, as you do, that it happens way more than it should.